Yandrich v. Radic
1981 Pa. LEXIS 935, 495 Pa. 243, 433 A.2d 459 (1981)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A plaintiff cannot recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress caused by witnessing an injury to a third person unless the plaintiff was located near the scene of the accident and the shock resulted from a direct emotional impact from the sensory and contemporaneous observance of the accident.
Facts:
- Martin J. Radie's automobile struck a bicycle ridden by nineteen-year-old George N. Yandrich (the son), causing severe injuries.
- The victim's father, George Yandrich, did not witness the accident and was not in the immediate vicinity when it occurred.
- After being notified of the accident, the father rushed to the scene, but his son had already been transported to a hospital.
- The father proceeded to the hospital and remained there for five days until his son died from the injuries.
- Following his son's death, the father became despondent, began to drink heavily, and cried continuously, stating he had no desire to live.
- Approximately three months after the accident, the father committed suicide with a self-inflicted gunshot wound.
Procedural Posture:
- David Paul Yandrich, as administrator for the estate of George Yandrich, filed an action in trespass against Martin J. Radie in the Court of Common Pleas (trial court).
- Radie filed a preliminary objection in the nature of a demurrer, seeking dismissal for failure to state a cause of action.
- The trial court sustained the demurrer and dismissed the complaint.
- Yandrich (appellant) appealed the dismissal to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, an intermediate appellate court.
- The Superior Court affirmed the order of the trial court.
- The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania granted allocatur to review the Superior Court's decision.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress exist for a father who did not witness his son's fatal accident, was not in the immediate vicinity, and only learned of it after the fact, arriving at the scene after his son had been taken to the hospital?
Opinions:
Opinion_in_support_of_affirmance - Wilkinson, J.
No. A cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress does not exist where the plaintiff was not a witness to the accident and was not in the immediate vicinity thereof. The court applies the three-factor foreseeability test from Sinn v. Burd, which considers: (1) whether the plaintiff was located near the scene, (2) whether the shock resulted from a direct emotional impact from sensory and contemporaneous observance of the accident, and (3) whether the plaintiff and victim were closely related. Here, the father fails the first two prongs as he was not present at the scene and did not observe the accident. To extend liability beyond these limits would create an open-ended standard with no workable guidelines, abandoning established tort principles for a 'realm of uncertainty.'
Opinion_in_support_of_affirmance - Nix, J.
No. A cause of action was not properly stated because the law requires a direct sensory experience of the traumatic event for recovery. The evolution of the law from the 'impact rule' to the 'zone of danger' test (Niederman) and finally to the bystander rule (Sinn) has always been grounded in the plaintiff's personal, sensory experience of the negligent act. To allow recovery for someone who was merely informed of an accident would be to compensate for grief (solatium), which has long been unrecoverable in tort law. Foreseeability is a legal tool used by courts to define the limits of duty and policy, not simply a factual question for the jury.
Opinion_in_support_of_reversal - Flaherty, J.
Yes. A cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress should be recognized for a parent who learns of, but does not witness, the fatal injury to their child. The emotional distress suffered by a parent in this situation is a 'substantial wrong' and is just as foreseeable as the trauma of a parent who witnesses the accident. Denying recovery based on the arbitrary distinction of contemporaneous observation is unjust. The emotional strain of sitting helplessly at a child's hospital bedside can be as great as witnessing the event itself, and a jury should be permitted to determine whether the defendant's negligence was a substantial factor in causing the parent's severe emotional harm.
Analysis:
This case solidifies the boundaries of bystander liability for negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) in Pennsylvania, refusing to extend it beyond the requirements set in Sinn v. Burd. The court's affirmance establishes that direct, contemporaneous sensory observation of the traumatic event is a mandatory element for recovery, not merely a factor to be weighed. This decision draws a firm line between compensable shock from witnessing an event and non-compensable grief from learning of a loss, reflecting a strong policy concern about creating limitless and unpredictable liability for tortfeasors.
